ArticleHuman molecular genetics2024
Challenges and approaches to calibrating patient phenotype as evidence for cancer gene variant classification under ACMG/AMP guidelines.
Article in Human molecular genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A quantitative, Bayesian-informed approach to gene-specific variant classification: Updated Expert Panel recommendations improve classification of TP53 germline variants for Li-Fraumeni syndrome.Genome medicine · 2025Review
- Characteristics predicting reduced penetrance variants in the high-risk cancer predisposition gene TP53.HGG advances · 2025Article
- Specifications of the ACMG/AMP variant curation guidelines for the analysis of germline PALB2 sequence variants.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- SPINK1-related chronic pancreatitis: A model that encapsulates the spectrum of variant effects, genetic complexity, and classificatory challenges.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel.American journal of human genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since first publication of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Medical Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant classification guidelines, additional recommendations for application of certain criteria have been released (https://clinicalgenome.org/docs/), to improve their application in the diagnostic setting. However, none have addressed use of the PS4 and PP4 criteria, capturing patient presentation as evidence towards pathogenicity. Application of PS4 can be done through traditional case-control studies, or "proband counting" within or across clinical testing cohorts. Review of the existing PS4 and PP4 specifications for Hereditary Cancer Gene Variant Curation Expert Panels revealed substantial differences in the approach to defining specifications. Using BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 as exemplar genes, we calibrated different methods proposed for applying the "PS4 proband counting" criterion. For each approach, we considered limitations, non-independence with other ACMG/AMP criteria, broader applicability, and variability in results for different datasets. Our findings highlight inherent overlap of proband-counting methods with ACMG/AMP frequency codes, and the importance of calibration to derive dataset-specific code weights that can account for potential between-dataset differences in ascertainment and other factors. Our work emphasizes the advantages and generalizability of logistic regression analysis over simple proband-counting approaches to empirically determine the relative predictive capacity and weight of various personal clinical features in the context of multigene panel testing, for improved variant interpretation. We also provide a general protocol, including instructions for data formatting and a web-server for analysis of personal history parameters, to facilitate dataset-specific calibration analyses required to use such data for germline variant classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.